turtledovefandomcom-20200216-history
Talk:Alexander the Great
An Alexander article? Great. Turtle Fan 01:41, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :Yes. Unfortunately, it's nothing more than a one-liner, but it's a relevant one-liner. TR 14:53, April 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Eh, certain historical figures are cool enough that there's nothing wrong with that. Turtle Fan 16:17, April 9, 2010 (UTC) Concurrently married - I'm trying to decide whether we could do a Polygamists category. David had a ton of wives so once we steel ourselves and make the bold declaration that Tabitas is David, that allows growth potential. All sorts of ancient monarchs. Anyone who had a harem, which I believe at this point is just Otto of Schlepsig. Barbara Yeager. Turtle Fan 16:42, April 9, 2010 (UTC) Oh, and Puyi had two wives. Turtle Fan 16:43, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :The sultans and Caliphs probably make this category viable all by themselves. Telerikh, the Bulgar king would be another. I think this category has legs right now. TR 16:49, April 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Yeah, you're right. Funny how sometimes you start thinking about a category and suddenly more and more articles you'd thought of come rushing into place. . . . Turtle Fan 18:08, April 9, 2010 (UTC) :Oh, shit and the old school Mormons. How could we forget those guys? TR 16:57, April 9, 2010 (UTC) ::Oh, yes, them. I for one wasn't even thinking about Americans or the modern era. Barbara Larssen came to mind but she's something of a special case. Turtle Fan 18:08, April 9, 2010 (UTC) I think the literary note would be better placed in the article on "The Daimon" proper. See also link between Alexander and Alcibiades would also serve the same purpose in a less cumbersome manner. TR (talk) 15:23, September 5, 2013 (UTC) :I think that while well reasoned, it is somewhat speculative and especially about a person that is not mentioned in the story. The best place for possible future ramifications would be, as TR suggests, in the story article. This would be especially so if there are effects on multiple characters. I can see two paragraphs, one covering both the comment here on Alexander and a second on the impact of Socrates' and Plato's deaths on Western philosophy. :While we discourage speculation, I think some on immediate ramifications directly based on what the story covers would be beneficial. In this case, the two issues you raised but not speculation on the Roman Republic, Empire, Fall, Medieval Europe, the Enlightenment and so on. ML4E (talk) 22:28, September 5, 2013 (UTC) King Philip Assuming User:Blaise MacDuff, the Purple Dragon's article on Alexander was accurate (I don't recall myself) would it warrant a new article on his father King Philip with an "Occupation Duty" subsection like the one he had written? ML4E (talk) 20:41, December 10, 2014 (UTC) :A review of the book via amazon confirms a reference to Philip's siege of the Persian garrison of Jerusalem (and no references to Alexander, hence the deletion). Now, in OTL, Philip II of Macedon didn't launch such as siege from what I can tell, but Alexander did. Therefore, I think we're meant to understand that Philip II was able to fulfill more of his ambitions in this work than in OTL. So, yeah, we should probably get around to an article on Philip II of Macedon. TR (talk) 20:53, December 10, 2014 (UTC) Yay, another historical character! ML4E (talk) 20:10, December 12, 2014 (UTC) Supervolcano One for the hist refs.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 20:25, August 26, 2017 (UTC) :I suppose I agree. TR (talk) 17:35, August 27, 2017 (UTC) :I guess I agree too. ML4E (talk) 17:55, August 27, 2017 (UTC) "See also" section The thing about Alkibiades may be unnecessary. I'm sure several generations of Greek commanders looked eastward and had the same thoughts before Alexander made it a reality. Hardly unique to Alkibiades.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 23:21, September 5, 2017 (UTC) :No, but Alexander is certainly the one who actually made the effort, and some elements of Alkbiades seem like conscious parallels, which is a consistent use of the see also. On the other hand, I don't terribly care about it one way or the other. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. So it can stay or it can go. TR (talk) 03:55, September 6, 2017 (UTC) :I'm more inclined to keep it rather than drop it since, as TR says, Turtledove seems to have modeled Alkibiades' ambitions on Alexander. See the "See Also" in Alkibiades. However, I don't feel strongly about it, just on the balance favor keeping it. ML4E (talk) 17:45, September 6, 2017 (UTC) :I think it can go. It's appropriate on the Alkibiades article, since it tells us something about what HT did with that figure. It tells us nothing about what HT thinks of Alexander. Turtle Fan (talk) 03:14, September 7, 2017 (UTC) ::It should also be remembered that Alki doesn't act on this ambition within the story; he just woolgathers about it. He might go ahead with it "after the curtain falls" but this wiki isn't concerned with possible futures after the book is closed. If we had every example of "this character planned to do suchandsuch, see also this person who really did that in OTL," we'd get too bogged down.JonathanMarkoff (talk) 03:52, September 7, 2017 (UTC) :::'example of "this character planned to do suchandsuch, see also this person who really did that in OTL," we'd get too bogged down.' :::That last is not strictly true. I don't think we have very many examples of such characters so I don't think we would get bogged down. I think we should definitely keep the Alkibiades "See Also". ML4E (talk) 17:46, September 7, 2017 (UTC) ::::There's also a throwaway line about how Alki doesn't intend to give Macedonians much of a role in the coming campaign, a sort of "Look how clever I'm being!" from HT. And I do believe HT makes the connection more explicit in the author's notes section, which is within our purview. Turtle Fan (talk) 22:08, September 7, 2017 (UTC)